fm_get_layouts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's paginated, sorted, or filtered, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential action, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and integration with sibling tools. For a read operation in a database context, more details on authentication or output format would enhance completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by not introducing unnecessary information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'データベース内のすべてのレイアウト一覧を取得します' (Retrieves a list of all layouts in the database). It specifies the verb (retrieves/get) and resource (layouts), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fm_get_layout_metadata, which might retrieve metadata about specific layouts rather than listing them all.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like fm_get_layout_metadata or fm_get_records, nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or session validation, which are implied by the presence of fm_login, fm_logout, and fm_validate_session tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.